The court emphasized the need for the legal authority to consider the implications of revised minimum wages and exceptions provided by the competent authority in adjudicating claims under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948.

S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) SINCE the controversy involved and the questions raised in both the writ petitions are common, on the request of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions which have been heard together are being disposed of by a common order.

( 2 ) THE petitioners feel aggrieved by an order passed by the legal authority appointed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 whereunder their claim raised under Section 20 of the said Act for the recovery of the balance due on account of payment of amount less than the minimum rates or wages had been rejected holding that they were not entitled to any relief.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Government advocate, representing the State-respondents and have carefully perused the record.

( 4 ) THE facts in brief, shorn of details and necessary for the disposal of the Writ Petitions, lie in a narrow compass: The petitioners had been employed in the establishment of the respondents on daily wage basis. They were being paid an amount of Rs. 20. 90 paise per day towards wages. They had filed on July 8, 1994 the claim petition under Section 20 of the minimum Wages Act praying that a direction be issued for the payment of the wages to them at the rate of Rs. 51. 80 paise per day w. e. f. January 1, 1991. It was further prayed that the employer be directed to pay penalty at the rate of ten times of the difference of the amount, the payment whereof stood withheld without any justifiable ground.

( 5 ) THE stand of the employer before the legal authority while contesting the claim of the petitioners was that though the petitioners have been employed as the labourers they were not entitled to the wages admissible to the supervisors/paryavekshak/diploma Holders. It was further asserted that the competent authority had determined the minimum rate of wages for the labourers falling in the category of the petitioners which was to become effective from October 1, 1992 fixing it to be rs. 39. 69 paise per day. In view of the aforesaid fixation of the minimum wages, which had been made admissible to a skilled labourer, the petitioners were not entitled to any amount higher than the said amount.

( 6 ) IN the counter affidavit return filed in opposition to the writ petitions, the respondents have relied upon the order of the competent authority fixing the minimum wages at the rate of Rs. 39. 69 paise per day to a labourer falling in the category of "kushal Shramik". This obviously indicates that so far as the category in which the petitioners were to be placed, it is not disputed that it was that of "kushal shramik", even according to the stand taken by the respondents.

( 7 ) IN the aforesaid return, it has been indicated that by the time the return was filed i. e. December 9, 1998, the petitioners were being paid towards wages as the labourers an amount of Rs. 33. 80 paise per day and a dearness allowance at the rate of Rs. 20. 76 paise per day, that is to say, a total amount of rs. 54. 56 paise per day.

( 8 ) THE legal authority on a careful consideration of the evidence and the materials on record came to the conclusion that the petitioners, who were the civil diploma holders from the M. P. Board of Technical Education, bhopal, were discharging the duties of Survey designing, Estimating, Drawing, etc. and had experience in that work.

( 9 ) THE legal authority however rejected the application holding that the petitioners were not entitled to the relief as prayed for, for the entire period, as the time limit prescribed under the Act for the payment of an amount envisaged under Section 20 (2) of the Act could not be for a period exceeding one year. The claim was found to be within time for the time period July 8, 1993 to July 8, 1994 only. No direction for payment of even the amount for that period was however issued as the legal authority was of the view that the new rates of minimum wages had been fixed and made effective from October 1, 1

Click Here to Read the rest of this document